10 Harsh Truths About Corporate Websites

Advertisement

We all make mistakes running our websites. However, the nature of those mistakes varies depending on the size of your company. As your organization grows, the mistakes change. This post addresses common mistakes among large organizations.

Most of the clients I work with are large organizations: universities, large charities, public sector institutions and large companies. Over the last 7 years, I have noticed certain recurring misconceptions among these organizations. This post aims to dispel these illusions and encourage people to face the harsh reality.

The problem is that if you are reading this post, you are probably already aware of these things. But hopefully this article will be helpful to you as you convince others within your organization. In any case, here are our 10 harsh truths about websites of large organizations.

1. You Need A Separate Web Division

In many organizations, the website is managed by either the marketing or IT department. However, this inevitably leads to a turf war, with the website becoming the victim of internal politics.

In reality, pursuing a Web strategy is not particularly suited to either group. IT may be excellent at rolling out complex systems, but it is not suited to developing a friendly user experience or establishing an online brand.

Screenshot of Zeldman's website
Zeldman1 urges organisations to create a separate web division.

Marketing, on the other hand, is little better. As Jeffrey Zeldman puts it in his article Let there be Web divisions2:

The Web is a conversation. Marketing, by contrast, is a monologue… And then there’s all that messy business with semantic markup, CSS, unobtrusive scripting, card-sorting exercises, HTML run-throughs, involving users in accessibility, and the rest of the skills and experience that don’t fall under Marketing’s purview.

Instead, the website should be managed by a single unified team. Again, Zeldman sums it up when he writes:

Put them in a division that recognizes that your website is not a bastard of your brochures, nor a natural outgrowth of your group calendar. Let there be Web divisions.

2. Managing Your Website Is A Full-Time Job

Not only is the website often split between marketing and IT, it is also usually under-resourced. Instead of there being a dedicated Web team, those responsible for the website are often expected to run it alongside their “day job.” When a Web team is in place, it is often over-stretched. The vast majority of its time is spent on day-to-day maintenance rather than longer-term strategic thinking.

This situation is further aggravated by the fact that the people hired to “maintain” the website are junior members of the staff. They do not have the experience or authority to push the website forward. It is time for organizations to seriously invest in their websites by hiring full-time senior Web managers to move their Web strategies forward.

3. Periodic Redesign Is Not Enough

Because corporate websites are under-resourced, they are often neglected for long periods of time. They slowly become out of date with their content, design and technology.

Eventually, the website becomes such an embarrassment that management steps in and demands that it be sorted. This inevitably leads to a complete redesign at considerable expense. As I point out in the Website Owners Manual3, this a flawed approach. It is a waste of money because when the old website is replaced, the investment put into it is lost, too. It is also tough on finances, with a large expenditure having to be made every few years.

Screenshot of Cameron Molls Article
Cameron Moll encourages4 web designers to realign their website rather than redesign.

A better way is continual investment in your website, allowing it to evolve over time. Not only is this less wasteful, it is also better for users, as pointed out by Cameron Moll in his post Good Designers Redesign, Great Designers Realign5.

4. Your Website Cannot Appeal To Everyone

One of the first questions I ask a client is, “Who is your target audience?” I am regularly shocked at the length of the reply. Too often, it includes a long and detailed list of diverse people. Inevitably, my next question is, “Which of those many demographic groups are most important?” Depressingly, the answer is usually that they are all equally important.

The harsh truth is that if you build a website for everyone, it will appeal to no one. It is important to be extremely focused about your audience and cater your design and content to it. Does this mean you should ignore your other users? Not at all. Your website should be accessible by all and not offend or exclude anybody. However, the website does need to be primarily aimed at a clearly defined audience.

5. You Are Wasting Money On Social Networking

I find it encouraging that website managers increasingly recognize that a Web strategy is more than running a website. They are beginning to use tools such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to increase their reach and engage with new audiences. However, although they are using these tools, too often they do so ineffectively. Tweeting on a corporate account or posting sales demonstrations on YouTube misses the essence of social networking.

Screenshot of Microsoft's Channel 9 website
Microsoft dramatically improved its image amoung the development community by allowing Microsoft staff to speak out via the Channel 9 website.

Social networking is about people engaging with people. Individuals do not want to build relationships with brands and corporations. They want to talk to other people. Too many organizations throw millions into Facebook apps and viral videos when they could spend that money on engaging with people in a transparent and open away.

Instead of creating a corporate Twitter account or indeed even a corporate blog, encourage your employees to start Tweeting and blogging themselves. Provide guidelines on acceptable behavior and what tools they need to start engaging directly with the community connected to your products and services. This demonstrates not only your commitment to the community but also the human side of your business.

6. Your Website Is Not All About You

Where some website managers want their website to appeal to everybody, others want it to appeal to themselves and their colleagues. A surprising number of organizations ignore their users entirely and base their websites entirely on an organizational perspective. This typically manifests itself in inappropriate design that caters to the managing director’s personal preferences and contains content full of jargon.

A website should not pander to the preferences of staff but should rather meet the needs of its users. Too many designs are rejected because the boss “doesn’t like green.” Likewise, too much website copy contains acronyms and terms used only within the organization.

7. You’re Not Getting Value From Your Web Team

Whether they have an in-house Web team or use an external agency, many organizations fail to get the most from their Web designers. Web designers are much more than pixel pushers. They have a wealth of knowledge about the Web and how users interact with it. They also understand design techniques, including grid systems, white space, color theory and much more.

Post from Twitter complaining about being a pixel pusher
Treating designers as pixel pushers wastes their design experience: post from Twitter complaining about being a pixel pusher

It is therefore wasteful to micro-manage by asking them to “make the logo bigger” or to “move that 3 pixels to the left.” By doing so, you are reducing their role to that of a software operator and wasting the wealth of experience they bring.

If you want to get the maximum return on your Web team, present it with problems, not solutions. For example, if you’re targeting your website at teenage girls, and the designer goes for corporate blue, suggest that your audience might not respond well to that color. Do not tell him or her to change it to pink. This way, the designer has the freedom to find a solution that may even be better than your choice. You allow your designer to solve the problem you have presented.

8. Design By Committee Brings Death

The ultimate symbol of a large organization’s approach to website management is the committee. A committee is often formed to tackle the website because internal politics demand that everybody has a say and all considerations be taken into account. To say that all committees are a bad idea is naive, and to suggest that a large corporate website could be developed without consultation is fanciful. However, when it comes to design, committees are often the kiss of death.

Illustration showing why design by committee fails
Design by committee leads to design on the fly.

Design is subjective. The way we respond to a design can be influenced by culture, gender, age, childhood experience and even physical conditions (such as color blindness). What one person considers great design could be hated by another. This is why it is so important that design decisions be informed by user testing rather than personal experience. Unfortunately, this approach is rarely taken when a committee is involved in design decisions.

Instead, designing by committee becomes about compromise. Because committee members have different opinions about the design, they look for ways to find common ground. One person hates the blue color scheme, while another loves it. This leads to designing on the fly, with the committee instructing the designer to “try a different blue” in the hopes of finding middle ground. Unfortunately, this leads only to bland design that neither appeals to nor excites anyone.

9. A CMS Is Not A Silver Bullet

Many of the clients I work with have amazingly unrealistic expectations of CMS (content management systems). Those without one think it will solve all of their content woes, while those who have one moan about it because it hasn’t!

It is certainly true that a CMS can bring a lot of benefits. These include:

  • reducing the technical barriers of adding content,
  • allowing more people to add and edit content,
  • facilitating faster updates,
  • and allowing greater control.

However, many CMS are less flexible than their owners would like. They fail to meet the changing demands of the websites they manage. Website managers also complain that their CMS is hard to use. However, in many cases, this is because those using it have not been adequately trained or are not using it regularly enough.

Finally, a CMS may allow content to be easily updated, but it does not ensure that content will be updated or even that the quality of content will be acceptable. Many CMS-based websites still have out-of-date content or poorly written copy. This is because internal processes have not been put in place to support the content contributors.

If you look to a CMS to solve your website maintenance issues, you will be disappointed.

10. You Have Too Much Content

Part of the problem with content maintenance on large corporate websites is that there is too much content in the first place. Most of these websites have “evolved” over years, with more and more content having been added. At no stage has anybody reviewed the content and asked what could be taken away.

Many website managers fill their website with copy that nobody will read. This happens because of:

  • A fear of missing something: by putting everything online, they believe users will be able to find whatever they want. Unfortunately, with so much information available, it is hard to find anything.
  • A fear users will not understand: whether from a lack of confidence in their website or in their audience, they feel the need to provide endless instruction to users. Unfortunately, users never read this copy.
  • A desperate desire to convince: they are desperate to sell their product or communicate their message, and so they bloat the text with sales copy that actually conveys little valuable information.

Steve Krug, in his book Don’t Make Me Think, encourages website managers to “Get rid of half the words on each page, then get rid of half of what’s left.” This will reduce the noise level on each page and make the useful content more prominent.

Conclusions

Large organizations do a lot right in running their websites. However, they also face some unique challenges that can lead to painful mistakes. Resolving these problems means accepting that mistakes have been made, overcoming internal politics and changing the way you control your brand. Doing so will give you a significant competitive advantage and allow your Web strategy to become more effective over the long term.

(al)

Footnotes

  1. 1 http://www.zeldman.com
  2. 2 http://www.zeldman.com/2007/07/02/let-there-be-web-divisions/
  3. 3 http://boagworld.com/websiteownersmanual
  4. 4 http://www.alistapart.com/articles/redesignrealign
  5. 5 http://www.alistapart.com/articles/redesignrealign

↑ Back to top Tweet itShare on Facebook

Paul Boag is the author of Digital Adaptation and a leader in digital strategy with over 20 years experience. Through consultancy, speaking, writing, training and mentoring he passionately promotes digital best practice.

Advertising
  1. 1

    absolutely brilliant, great article!! Thx Smashing Magazine

    0
  2. 152

    Fantastic article! Imagine my surprise when I showed up in a screenshot o.O

    I’ve since graduated from “Pixel Pusher” to “Aesthetic Engineering Asset,” however. It’s no more significant, but requires more work.

    /bookmarked for great reference

    0
  3. 303

    @Aleks

    In item #1, Paul points to a very good article, at zeldman.com, in his post that might help in your situation. You’ll also find the zeldman article comments enriching (not just replies like “cool” and “me too”)

    Good luck!

    0
  4. 454

    Regarding the “Design Committee” observation, I agree that there is nothing that kills website performance like speculative design. Even worse, Design Committee’s often suffer from the “HiPPO” syndrome where it’s the “HIghest Paid Persons Opinion” that drives important design decisions. User testing and focus groups are better but they are still quasi-speculative- you’re still relying on a small group of people to help design the site.

    The best way to design a site is to experiment and let your site visitors tell you what works. For example, Google runs experiments all the time to figure out the best user experience for the Google homepage.

    There are lots of website testing strategies- ranging from simple A/B/C tests to complex multivariable tests that allow you to test millions of versions to find the best one. The best part about testing is that at the end- you have statistical proof of which site design worked, which ones didn’t, and why. Tools like Google Website Optimizer, Omniture Test&Target, and Interwoven Optimost (my employer) help manage the testing process.

    0
  5. 605

    fantastic article. So good, I just got it tattoo’d on my back.

    0
  6. 756

    Great article!

    I’m currently in that number seven-situation. My client tells me exactly what to do and it’s really frustrating that they don’t want to utilise my expertise. “Make this less useable” is pretty much what they are saying and they won’t listen to my arguments on why that’s a bad idea.

    What to do? :P

    0
  7. 907

    Great article Paul.

    Love the podcast too. Keeps me inspired to keep on working on new things.

    – Paul

    0
  8. 1058

    Nice Article!

    @SM TEAM – You guys need to consider changing comments layout of Your blog. It is little confusing ( picture , commenter name and content alignment, comment number repeat etc ) and hard to distinguish between two comments ( some kind of separator will be easy on eyes) , Author/Admin’s comment difference is also not there ( i guess ). Hope you got what I am trying to say here?

    0
  9. 1209

    It’s about time larger companies realize this fact. I’ve worked with some LARGE corps in the past and they usually contract me out to do the tasks that their internals should be doing. I don’t mind because I get work, but it should be up to someone internally to do the right thing for their web site.

    0
  10. 1360

    Definitely Smashing!

    0
  11. 1511

    You hit the nail on the head! Nice!

    0
  12. 1662

    best post ever.

    0
  13. 1813

    Amazing.. this is RAW truth!!!

    0
  14. 1964

    Nice recap of fundamentals. However, #1 is dangerously off base. Marketing is responsible for the brand and the conversations with the outside world.

    Marketing is the leader and responsible for all corporate communications. Strategic and effective marketers recognize that outsourcing web development, updates, and maintenance is the smart choice. Web strategy and development is not a core competency of corporations. Making and selling products and services is.

    Outsourcing is more cost effective; it eliminates harassment of developers by divisions clamoring for more; gives more flexibility (Need a new web partner as your company grows? Go get one.) And, it provides better creative as the designers will have much broader, deeper experience from working on a variety of projects. Of course, the developers work with the marketing IT experts to ensure smooth implementation and site security.

    In companies with effective and successful web sites, marketing owns and leads the web.
    Marketing makes the final decisions on content, creative, updates, etc.. And, truly smart companies eliminate web bureaucracies and higher costs by outsourcing to trusted expert partners.

    0
  15. 2115

    An interesting read is Steve Krug’s “Don’t Make Me Think” – I’ve worked on large-ish corporate an educational sites and one thing that I find is that most people just want to feel some sort of ownership when it comes to their online presence.

    It’s true that there are some people who have the natural tendency to push their view or idea on web projects, but I have also found it true that many designers and web producers have an elitist view that causes them to lash out against those who are without the same expertise or experience level.

    I always try to accommodate that desire for ownership by preemptively giving resources or asking for opinions of those involved. This accomplishes several things, one of which is you can subtly define the roles of those involved while at the same time giving them resources to learn from without engaging in the “who’s the expert here?” discussions.

    The end result is a better product with better informed participants which in turn should lead to a more successful site over the course of it’s life-span.

    I realize all of the above is idealistic, but I think it’s a good starting approach.

    0
  16. 2266

    Great post. I found all aspects to be quite on point.

    0
  17. 2417

    Absolutely amazing! These are the best points I have EVER read in regards to website development.

    *clapping*

    0
  18. 2568

    I am working at a client right now that does have a web department. But there is still a turf war over who that department reports up to. Right now it is the CMO, but of course the CIO thinks it should under his domain.

    I could interpret this article as suggesting that there should also be a CWO, or chief web officer. That may make some sense at some companies, but not most small or medium businesses. I think that my vote would be for a web department to report to the marketing organization. Organizations just need to figure out how to matrix in IT personnel to make it a collaborative effort.

    0
  19. 2719

    Very nice article. But I have a question about what I deal with every customer:

    How do you make them give you the texts and pictures fast? Cause I actually have to beg them to give me what is necessary for their site… This is so annoying cause sites finish in months and I get paid after months ….Any suggestions ?

    0
  20. 2870

    Jebus F. Christ! This article is so friggin’ true. But I’d dare not pass it on to clients!

    0
  21. 3021

    excellent post.

    Are you planning a follow up with examples of companies doing it right? Not to say that what’s right for one org. would be right for everyone, but solid examples to reinforce the concepts.

    0
  22. 3172

    @158 #1 could be the basis of the next article in itself. The author is absolutely correct, the marketing department should have nothing to do with the web department.

    I’ve worked for organisations of all sizes and frequently, the marketing people I’ve encountered are knowingly overpaid, spineless dinosaurs whose field of ‘expertise’ is clumsily trying to keep up with the web phenomenon (just observe these w*nkers flailing around on Twitter) and whose qualifications are woefully irrelevant as a result. Often they are former PAs whom grateful bosses have promoted to Marketing Manager for years of loyal service, agreeing with what they said and doing a nice job managing the office redecorations. The younger, inexperienced ones are usually corporate ladder-climbing eye-candy. With too few welcome exceptions, they are often risk-averse, ignorant, uncreative cronies incapable of proposing anything even mildy contentious to the stakeholders, let alone debating aspects of a concept.

    Ideally, abolish marketing and establish separate offline and online creative communications departments and suppliers who can deal exclusively with the main stakeholders.

    0
  23. 3323

    Well, that is possibly the best article I have read in the last 12 months of Smashing Magazine! Well done guys 5/5. Extremely true, and useful stuff!

    0
  24. 3474

    Ha! That was awesome…I especially loved #8. Definitely true.

    Check my portfolio: http://www.awmcreative.com

    0
  25. 3625

    HAHAHA! You’re writing out of my soul. I’ve sent this post to my boss. Keep you fingers crossed, that I am not surfing to Smashing-Jobs tomorrow .. =:)

    0
  26. 3776

    Thanks Smashing!
    This is my everyday battle!

    0
  27. 3927

    Well done, Paul. If I ever interview for a corporate/not-for-profit job, then I now have a list of questions to ask/ponder.

    0
  28. 4078

    I can never figure out why people can’t just disagree without being so aggressive about it. So what if some – even all – of the points made have been made before? The headline of this post wasn’t ‘Ten Never-Before-Told Truths…’ And so what if it’s not really big news to us industry veterans? How much great conversation do you enjoy in your daily lives that simply covers old ground? We do it all the time; it’s the act of sharing experiences that brings us closer together. And like it or not, PART of this thing called social media is sharing and coming together.

    In any case, the post obviously struck a chord with its INTENDED audience, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many positive comments.

    0
  29. 4229

    Jeff Zeldman’s comment, “The Web is a conversation. Marketing, by contrast, is a monologue… ” is wrong or at least poor marketing. For marketing to be successful it absolutely must be a conversation.

    Marketing is charged with creating and nurturing customer relationships. Big job. Involves product design, channel management, pricing strategy, along with advertising and other promotional activities. Don’t confuse those advertising and promotional activities with marketing. It’s really a small part even though it’s the most visible.

    The internet — including websites but going beyond — is a tremendously powerful tool for marketing. It enables discussion with customer like never before. Nothing nurtures relationships like conversation — the core of marketing.

    0
  30. 4380

    That is easily the most useful post I have read all year. I will be referencing your points with my customers in the future. Thankyou.

    0
  31. 4531

    This is my first comment on this site ever, and I have been reading since 2007. I wanted to thank you for this post. This article will really help me educate my customers in the future.

    0
  32. 4682

    This is quite possibly the best post I have ever seen.

    So many of them just don’t understand why their efforts are unsuccessful once web designers deliver the product the client asked for, and this post does a fantastic job of calling the client out on their blunders.

    Terrific. I love it.

    0
  33. 4833

    Groovy! Lovely article, hits the nail right on the head. Keep up the “smashing” work!

    0
  34. 4984

    This article is being fluffed up more than Obama. Yes it is good, but to say it is the best all year is just dumb it’s only February. Send the article to people it will affect, not just people like us stuck in a job that doesn’t follow the points. Sitting around agreeing can be nice but changing minds and habit is actually productive.

    0
  35. 5135

    I agree with Abbie Kendall, number #1 is dangerously off base.

    However, as for outsourcing there can be a great number of risks run with this choice. Such as cost and quality. Sales men do a good job of telling you abc software will be the perfect thing for your company when they are often quite wrong.

    What you need is people whether internal or external who know what they are doing. In my internal “IT” department I am the web designer and UI person. Our “IT” is collective of very smart people who have a really good idea about making large corporate websites. There will always be a struggle between design and practically ie “marketing” and “IT”.

    Personally “IT” tend to have alot of smart people that have experience in analysing and solving problems which lead to innovative solutions. I think these skills are more important than trying to stuff every shining object marketing see into a website.

    0
  36. 5286

    You’re so right there, but you’re also so preaching to the choir…

    Let’s send this out to all managers we know and force them to read it.

    0
  37. 5437

    I’m right there with you on this article. At my last temp job, not only was the web management split between Marketing and IT, but there was a single full-time perm position and one temp position to generate all web content, including ad banners and e-blasts. On top of that, the Board of Directors had final say on design elements and how and what content would appear on the homepage.

    I agree with the others that #1 is off-base. It is important to unify the brand and the messages coming out of that brand. However, I think the difficulty with housing the web team under Marketing often is that the “team” becomes a single webmaster or becomes an added task for employees who do more than just the web. Rather than separating out the web team, maybe the emphasis should be on giving the web the full attention it deserves.

    0
  38. 5588

    We are in complete agreement that listening to the market and developing the various internet channels does require unique competencies and perspectives. Where we differ is the need to create a unique division to own the strategy. Marketing is definitely *not* a monologue. That’s simply a misunderstanding of what marketing “is”. It is a dynamic process of listening and engaging the market including all of the influencers that ultimately develop brands and drive revenues and profits. What’s required is that the marketing competency needs to understand the capabilities and opportunities of the media and the way that the various channels interface with the company and market. I would argue that however your marketing competencies are structured – it is the entity that sets the business objectives and creates the alignment or manages the internal or external implementation of the strategy. Companies with enough literate leaders can make appropriate decisions about how to design and implement their interactive / social media strategies without creating additional silos and make smart decisions about where the get the resources to do so.

    0
  39. 5739

    Excellent article and realistic! It is true that useing a cms often you are not so flexible, but on the other hand you can add content easily, especially people who are not so familiar with the internet (>50 years old).

    0
  40. 5890

    Great article….

    0
  41. 6041

    have a contract working as a web manager for a large corp. BUT it is semi-part time (only about 30 hours a month!) So they only ever have time for content updates, but so many of their sites are out of date design and code that makes even managing content on them more difficult.

    I’d love to do a full overhaul, get their 15+ sites all in a CMS and have another part timer on the account – but they just don’t get it.

    0
  42. 6192

    The comment about social networking reach definately the point. Social networking is a great way in many marketing aspects (not even talking about SEO techniques). I have a lot of assignments where web 2.0 solutions are wanted, but they just want it because it’s a fashion term.

    Usually it’s a bit old fashioned companies who try to renew their market position, or want to blend in the “new world”.

    I feel instead of letting others fill their website, they should rather just use a twitter account and use RSS to update their site. Minor things like “I am at a promotion party of item X. I think we will order it for our customers. “. With good software, you can let your visitors vote or reply on it.

    That’s in my opinion a very good use web 2.0 software, rather then “make my site web 2.0″.

    0
  43. 6343

    We have a web department full of talented designers and developers. But it’s still marketing and sales that call the shots. And because of this our websites will continue to under perform until our views are respected and we are allowed to do the job we are paid for.

    Great article.

    0
  44. 6494


    Do not tell him or her to change it to pink. This way, the designer has the freedom to find a solution that may even be better than your choice. You allow your designer to solve the problem you have presented.

    Now that’s an awesome hint. Thanks so much for this great article!

    0
  45. 6645

    Langston Richardson

    February 12, 2009 2:22 am

    This is quite interesting. My team had this discussion on this very article in the last day. We took off the “corporate” because this is really about websites period. I personally fight with my colleagues over insights on what is right and what works. That fighting isn’t always bad but Paul #8 is a constant in the development industry. I’ve had to make many executive decisions/professional judgments to stop the Committee Drama with internal and clients.

    Unfortunately, most if not any of the warnings/truths mentioned will ever be heeded by organizations until failing to heed these harsh lessons cost people their jobs or their company’s serious lost of business and revenue. To point #8, If the job gets done and the client is happy, the design by committee is validated and the pixel-pushing slaves some call designers who knows better from point #7 starts activities ranging from job searches to combativeness to uninspired listlessness. Indeed, design/marketing/web development/consultancy organizations begin to adopt this last internal cultural trait.

    There hasn’t been an equivalent re-ordering/cleansing in the magnitude of the Dot.com meltdown to correct Paul’s 10 Harsh Truths.

    As we’ve faced in the last bubble, organizations can get away with having bad design, design by committee, trend following facebook/youtube/twitter feeds, pixel-pushing slavery, and use-ALL-of-the-content-I-gave-you thinking that’s characterize this industry because people believe that they are getting value from the way things are. It’s a commodity.

    If our web development paradigm shifts to questioning the value gained, then our industry can correct itself.

    We’re not a point where we all agree that web development has the definitive standard of what works like we can say print and TV have. (Print’s Last two paradigm shifts were the printing press and desktop publishing. TV: Cable, HD, PPV, DVD) The web’s multitude of ways has democratized and innovate the communications space in a far reaching way… but it’s still new to people with far more players than Print and TV ever had. Some of these players in this “technoclass” shows the effects of this democracy-imposing a structured order dichotomy. What designers think isn’t the same as marketers think isn’t the same as developers think isn’t the same what clients think isn’t the same as customers and people think and experience. Measurement has brought more opinions to data gathered and not clarity.

    What we have today are the top agencies that have the best car salespeople and have organized and cohesive understandings of web strategies and have clients who also understand and have organized and cohesive understandings of web strategies can mitigate the negative consequences of Paul’s lessons. But this is not yet repeatable. History shows that we tend to have 20/20 hindsight.

    Langston Richardson
    VP, Executive Creative Director / infuz

    0
  46. 6796

    Langston Richardson

    February 12, 2009 3:06 am

    adding to the conversations about marketing = or ≠ conversations:
    While Marketing only at it’s best, is not a monologue… it is still a far cry from a conversation. Case in point: marketing outside of our circle has reputation challenges. Conversations do not.

    Marketing is looking ultimately for a ROI, however long that takes. Conversations are sharing, honestly, and expression. The web has helped with the evolution of marketing to evolve from a shatter gun broadcast the relied on repetition and push to closer to how people really think and share in all media touch points.

    0
  47. 6947

    @Langston Richardson, That’s indeed true. However, expectatons from web2.0 is far too big sometimes. The difference between say a YouTube and a company offering products is a world apart.

    The web is a magnificant tool for marketing. However, as you mentioned, it doesn’t cover all the aspects as you name them. I think that just claming any web2.0 related idea cannot succeed in a company profile without having the employees or a dedicated person giving something to talk about first. This post is not a forum, so I am not going ot debate about this now. But there are very interesting points to discuss about this subject I think.

    0
  48. 7098

    Brilliant outline of what is still an emerging division/discipline in many companies. The creation of the “web division” is necessary but delicate. It is important to give that division authority and ulitmate responsibility but make sure they are not a “island”. The web division needs to be tightly integrated into all sales and marketing efforts.so that all traditional marketing efforts are leveraged and vice versa

    0
  49. 7249

    Totally true!

    0
  50. 7400

    Great info! Bringing harmony into the web design/development process within large organizations is indeed a task that can be very challenging. It requires not just technical ability but lots of wisdom.

    0

↑ Back to top